ZXrage

The blend between Soviet and NATO: The 121B

187 posts in this topic

I never assumed a CW reward tank was considered easy or somewhat common. (Although there are a bunch of 907's around.)

 

If they say they go to the top 3000 fame points players, how many players are normally involved?  5000?  30,000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never assumed a CW reward tank was considered easy or somewhat common. (Although there are a bunch of 907's around.)

 

If they say they go to the top 3000 fame points players, how many players are normally involved?  5000?  30,000?

 

I'd have to look at the last campaign's ranking to see how many players actually went for it. Nonetheless, there are 3,000 of them floating around. How many T-55A's and Object 260s have you seen around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 1.5% DPM increase going from the KV-4 to the IS-3 is definitely what makes the IS-3 as a tank, and don't even get me started on the massive 2.4% increase from the Caernarvon to the T32.

 

Also, the HESH-flinging FV 4005 has ~30% more DPM than the 268, so it's definitely the better vehicle. Right?

 

Or could it be that raw DPM is a largely meaningless figure and the specifics of the chassis are much more important?

 

You turn it around, i said: Most / all OP tanks have high dpm, that is totally different as ``high dpm makes a tank OP``...

 

(i should actually be ``high effective dpm``, having no penetration and massive dpm is still useless)

 

ps: and you HESH example is stupid, since random and derp, and KV4 is much better as ppl think it, l2p issues + bias are hte main problem (and on NA perhaps gold spam) but on EU KV4 is more then fine (one of the better tier 8 tanks)

 

And as Hallo said, you all drive without rammer? Rammer is the biggest no-brainer, there is exactly one tank on which it can be argued to not use, Wz-120, as Garbad did here:

 

So again, almost ANY OP tank has high dpm, tier 8 with highest dpm? ISU, which tank most ppl cry about? ISU, pre nerf Tier 10 with highest dpm? Fv-183 with HESH, 3x 1750 in 1 minute = 5250 dpm, tier 6 with highest effective dpm? KV-1s with its 390 alpha dmg, 8 deg gun dep and 175 pen (and still fast reload...) There are ofc exceptions, T29, E75, IS7 perhaps, but even in case of low dpm, think E50m, the effective dpm is still very good (more pen and better acc)

 

OT: looking a bit at stats and comperable tanks, the dpm will essential make or break this tank, with E50m like dpm it will be good, with (much) more dpm (a bit) OP with less dpm kinda bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making my point for me. Raw DPM is meaningless, the ability of the chassis to apply DPM is what matters. Everyone lost their goddamn minds over the STB-1 at first due to the DPM, and then we get to see the soft stats and suddenly it's apparent that the raw DPM of the vehicle is more or less impossible to apply. Now after the vehicle exists on the live servers and we have actual experience with it and not just partial statistics it's readily apparent that the vehicle has rendered obsolete neither the Leopard 1 nor the Soviet mediums.

 

The L7 is a proven gun with good hard stats. The WarPac style medium chassis is a proven chassis with good hard stats. What remains is the soft stats. I'm not saying the vehicle will be excellent and I'm not saying it will be awful, I'm saying it has potential but we won't know for a while, and it's idiotic for people to take a glance at the DPM value and write the whole thing off.

 

So again, almost ANY OP tank has high dpm, tier 8 with highest dpm? ISU, which tank most ppl cry about? ISU

 

I dunno' what tinfoil hat world you inhabit, but it sure as hell isn't the ISU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tier 8 with highest dpm? ISU, which tank most ppl cry about? ISU, 

 

The Roomba would like to have a word with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making my point for me. Raw DPM is meaningless, the ability of the chassis to apply DPM is what matters. Everyone lost their goddamn minds over the STB-1 at first due to the DPM, and then we get to see the soft stats and suddenly it's apparent that the raw DPM of the vehicle is more or less impossible to apply. Now after the vehicle exists on the live servers and we have actual experience with it and not just partial statistics it's readily apparent that the vehicle has rendered obsolete neither the Leopard 1 nor the Soviet mediums.

 

The L7 is a proven gun with good hard stats. The WarPac style medium chassis is a proven chassis with good hard stats. What remains is the soft stats. I'm not saying the vehicle will be excellent and I'm not saying it will be awful, I'm saying it has potential but we won't know for a while, and it's idiotic for people to take a glance at the DPM value and write the whole thing off.

 

 

I dunno' what tinfoil hat world you inhabit, but it sure as hell isn't the ISU.

 

From last week:

 

and ISU is #1 tier 8 td since like forever, only Jp2 is a fair match (and both are better as Rhm)

 

ps: and there only very little tanks with high paper dpm and low effectice dpm, STB comes to mind and?

 

(there more as 300 tanks btw...)

 

The Roomba would like to have a word with you.

 

ISU still beats its easy, 3307 vs 3047

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From last week:

 

and ISU is #1 tier 8 td since like forever, only Jp2 is a fair match (and both are better as Rhm)

 

ps: and there only very little tanks with high paper dpm and low effectice dpm, STB comes to mind and?

 

(there more as 300 tanks btw...)

 

 

ISU still beats its easy, 3307 vs 3047

 

Linking a thread that's mostly you bitching about a tank is not in any way a credible defense that said vehicle is "the most complained about" tier 8, particularly when about everyone who isn't you is saying it's not a big deal. Oh boy, that thread has 17 replies! What an overwhelming and scientifically accurate study.

 

I'm once again going to have to trot out this picture that I repeatedly have used for your posts in the past, and I expect you'll once again disappoint.

 

CitationNeeded.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making my point for me. Raw DPM is meaningless, the ability of the chassis to apply DPM is what matters. Everyone lost their goddamn minds over the STB-1 at first due to the DPM, and then we get to see the soft stats and suddenly it's apparent that the raw DPM of the vehicle is more or less impossible to apply. Now after the vehicle exists on the live servers and we have actual experience with it and not just partial statistics it's readily apparent that the vehicle has rendered obsolete neither the Leopard 1 nor the Soviet mediums.

 

The L7 is a proven gun with good hard stats. The WarPac style medium chassis is a proven chassis with good hard stats. What remains is the soft stats. I'm not saying the vehicle will be excellent and I'm not saying it will be awful, I'm saying it has potential but we won't know for a while, and it's idiotic for people to take a glance at the DPM value and write the whole thing off.

 

 

I dunno' what tinfoil hat world you inhabit, but it sure as hell isn't the ISU.

Considering it has a laser rangefinder and that in the description it's described as having better on-the-move accuracy than the Type 59/WZ-120... i do believe we can expect half-decent bloom.

Won't be surprised if it hit FV215(b) bloom though, because 1980's FCS yo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linking a thread that's mostly you bitching about a tank is not in any way a credible defense that said vehicle is "the most complained about" tier 8, particularly when about everyone who isn't you is saying it's not a big deal. Oh boy, that thread has 17 replies! What an overwhelming and scientifically accurate study.

 

I'm once again going to have to trot out this picture that I repeatedly have used for your posts in the past, and I expect you'll once again disappoint.

 

CitationNeeded.png

 

Whatever, then scrap the most complained part, point still stands, almost all OP tanks have good dpm, while having bad dpm almost always means shit tank.

 

ps: and nitpicking about a word more or less and other nonsens only shows you know im right and if you think im wrong, please name all those tanks with high dpm who are bad, or all those tanks with terrible dpm while beiing actually really good..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 1.5% DPM increase going from the KV-4 to the IS-3 is definitely what makes the IS-3 as a tank, and don't even get me started on the massive 2.4% increase from the Caernarvon to the T32.

 

Also, the HESH-flinging FV 4005 has ~30% more DPM than the 268, so it's definitely the better vehicle. Right?

 

Or could it be that raw DPM is a largely meaningless figure and the specifics of the chassis are much more important?

 

Another pointed example: 121 vs 62A, park them in front of each other and blast away; who dies first?

 

Some tanks are actually better with the other modules. I feel like the best set for the WZ-120, for instance, is VStab/GLD/Optics. It's a sneaky tank that benefits from vision abuse and getting that first monster hit on target. The DPM for that playstyle definitely takes a back seat.

 

Oh RIP, 120 is beast with rammer/vents/vstab. It's another one like the 62A-121 example. On paper, its DPM is low however in practice, nothing catches up with its DPM until like 30+ secs of solid firing. Stacking that makes it absolutely brutal, to the point that I'd say the ONLY reason it isn't the most OP tank in tier is because of the -3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the 121b have better effective front armor than the 113?

I also noticed the 121b seems to have the 113 style turret instead of the 121 turret, so less flat area for people to pen you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever, then scrap the most complained part, point still stands, almost all OP tanks have good dpm, while having bad dpm almost always means shit tank.

 

ps: and nitpicking about a word more or less and other nonsens only shows you know im right and if you think im wrong, please name all those tanks with high dpm who are bad, or all those tanks with terrible dpm while beiing actually really good..

 

Yeah, that's not how burden of proof works.

 

There's an invisible tea pot orbiting between Earth and Mars. It cannot be detected by any sensor humanity currently has. I am right unless you prove me wrong.

 

I've noticed most OP tanks have turrets. This tank looks to have a turret. Tank will be OP.

 

Does the 121b have better effective front armor than the 113?

I also noticed the 121b seems to have the 113 style turret instead of the 121 turret, so less flat area for people to pen you.

 

120mm @ 68° is good for ~320mm line of sight. 130mm at 60° is ~260mm. That said, the 113's glacis plate is almost never anywhere near full strength. Too reliant on sloping and too low-slung. Get just 5° above it and the glacis has lost ~53mm, to say nothing of what normalization does.

 

Edit: Have chart.

 

sQDqClb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering it has a laser rangefinder and that in the description it's described as having better on-the-move accuracy than the Type 59/WZ-120... i do believe we can expect half-decent bloom.

Won't be surprised if it hit FV215(b) bloom though, because 1980's FCS yo.

 

 

God if they implement that while saying the M60A1, produced in 1961, is too modern.

 

Fucking jesus WG I can't even 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God if they implement that while saying the M60A1, produced in 1961, is too modern.

 

Fucking jesus WG I can't even 

 

Fixed. WG is the most inconsistent, contradictory gaming company I have seen to date... but then again That's what you get for ex-Soviet, the same sort of contradictory doublethink that Republicans would try to feed you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God if they implement that while saying the M60A1, produced in 1961, is too modern.

 

Fucking jesus WG I can't even 

Leopard 1A5 when WG pls.

In other news, yeah I find the prospect of a 1980's tank hilarious. Would open up a whole new world of possible tank candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too low dpm is handicap. What is too low depends soft stats like someone wrote, but there is no need to go farther than centurion 7/1 to see how bad dpm makes whole tank underwhelming. Though 7/1 is special case as its dpm is especially bad.

 

I thing dpm value itself is bad value to compare, better value for comparison could be for example something like: damage done in 15 seconds starting with gun loaded and delaying first shot for seconds it takes to fully aim (soft stats effect). Then end of test time interval (15 sec?) adding partial damage value of unfinished loading shot, depending how much loading time was left for next shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind China has been consistently like 20 years behind the rest of the world, so their 1980's == 'murica 1960's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed. WG is the most inconsistent, contradictory gaming company I have seen to date... but then again That's what you get for ex-Soviet, the same sort of contradictory doublethink that Republicans politicians would try to feed you.

 

Still want the 121b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, though, that WG judges "modernity" not by date of production but by the technology placed in that tank. Smoothbores, composite armor, etc. If a tank is produced in the 80s with 50s technology that hardly makes it modern...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, though, that WG judges "modernity" not by date of production but by the technology placed in that tank. Smoothbores, composite armor, etc. If a tank is produced in the 80s with 50s technology that hardly makes it modern...

This tank has late 70's/early 80's tech. Let that sink in.

Laser rangefinder+ advanced gun stabilization + possibly Marconi FCS (possibly a similar model to the late-model Chieftains, Chinese got these to use in the Type 69) that included automated gun-laying = expect damn good soft stats on the gun. I won't be surprised if the Chinese placed every damn thing they had on the 121 models, because it was, after-all, their test platform tanks (like the American T-series heavies e.x. T29)

This is why i noted that i wouldn't be surprised if it got FV215(b) levels of good bloom, especially if it keeps it's E-50M levels of "bad" DPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This tank has nothing. It is just a creation WG made up. Let that sink. Once again this is no Type 69/79.

 

They took the 121 and added the L7. Both is already ingame. No problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This tank has nothing. It is just a creation WG made up. Let that sink. Once again this is no Type 69/79.

 

 

They took the 121 and added the L7. Both is already ingame. No problem here.

I do understand this is no Type 69, but remember it's a testbed vehicle. Denying that this tank doesn't use tech later found on the Type 69 is like saying that tech developed on the T29/T30/T34 wasn't used on the Pattons. They were (specifically engines/drive-train/transmissions/gun stabilization systems).

Also, the Chinese only got a rifled 105mm in the 70's (80's?). Before that they used rifled/smoothbore 100mm guns for their MTs.

Finally, if this has "nothing", explain the laser rangefinder mounted above the gun mantlet:

KHYuJkI.jpg?1

...

I have a feeling WG is intentionally keeping the DPM down to balance out the potentially epic levels of comfort soft stats this may have (which would be rather refreshing from the recent L7 tanks with shitty gun handling and/or shitty bloom)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand this is no Type 69, but remember it's a testbed vehicle. Denying that this tank doesn't use tech later found on the Type 69 is like saying that tech developed on the T29/T30/T34 wasn't used on the Pattons. They were (specifically engines/drive-train/transmissions/gun stabilization systems).

Also, the Chinese only got a rifled 105mm in the 70's (80's?). Before that they used rifled/smoothbore 100mm guns for their MTs.

Finally, if this has "nothing", explain the laser rangefinder mounted above the gun mantlet:

KHYuJkI.jpg?1

...

I have a feeling WG is intentionally keeping the DPM down to balance out the potentially epic levels of comfort soft stats this may have (which would be rather refreshing from the recent L7 tanks with shitty gun handling and/or shitty bloom)

good gun handling,  good turret,  L7, and armor where meds need to fire gold to reliably pen. 

it would bully meds so hard if it had dpm on the same levels of ru meds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.